[Tom_Doak]

The gist of several current threads (Did Tillinghast sell out?  Are back bunkers underrated?) seems to be that courses would benefit from more bunkers.

Others have opined that courses would benefit from more centerline bunkers; more cross bunkers; and so on and so forth.

Does the addition of bunkers necessarily make golf holes more "strategic," because there are more things to avoid?  Is there no such thing as clutter, or downright overkill?

If I told you to go out and build a golf course with only 25 bunkers, would it necessarily be boring to play?

Before you answer that, maybe you'd better re-count the number of bunkers on the original plan for Augusta National that everyone wants to restore.

[ian]

Tom,

"If I told you to go out and build a golf course with only 25 bunkers, would it necessarily be boring to play?"

Depends on the terrain, and the amount of natural framing the site has to offer. I personally believe there is a line between enough to make the course exciting, and overkill. I really like bunkers that frame the golf hole, but I find excessive bunkering without any relashionship to strategy becomes dull too.

[A_Clay_Man]

If what you imply is true, and people feel, more is better. Is that a reflection of how easy the game has become, and is manifesting itself because of some peoples desire to be further challenged?

Since everything always seems to beakdown into site (project) specifics, is the course with fewest bunkers, that challenges and inspires, with the best of them, the better design?

I think that fewer, perfectly placed bunkers, would show-off one or two things. The thoughtful design, and/or the "character" of terrain.

[TEPaul]

That's interesting--reading those threads referred to on this one I thought about posting a thread asking this very same question, particularly when I noticed a contributor or two apparently implying with the removal of bunkers a hole would seem to become easier, or not such good architecture or whatever in some devolving negative fashion.

I sure don't agree with that. While always recognizing that sand bunkering just may be an architect's single most useful tool to create interest and strategy on most golf courses they should probably be used only as a supplement when the laundry list of other interesting natural or even architectural mechanisms can't be found or used effectively enough.

I always admired Steel's Red Tail in Canada for that reason. The course was a low budget one in construction but there's plenty of strategic interest on that course and the course only has 23 bunkers. Even with that low number and the fact they have flat floors and grassed down faces (making their visibility sometimes "shadowy") their placement is very much felt making most golfers feel there're many more of them than just 23!

In my opinion on good natural ground for golf bunkering should be only a supplement if the desired effect isn't other-wise reached. If some truly excellent ground throughout could be found for golf and sand was not indigenous in that area I'd like to see a good architect try to go bunkerless, as much for naturalism as the challenge of just not using that old  architectural tool---the sand bunker.

[Donnie Beck]

I would love to see more "true bunkers" built today. When I say bunkers I mean truely ruff unkept nasty pits. I can't stand the modern sand trap. I would also love to see more closely cut chipping areas around greens. I find them much more interesting and challenging than the modern sand trap.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Does the addition of bunkers necessarily make golf holes more "strategic," because there are more things to avoid?  

Speaking in general terms, YES.
Would TOC & NGLA be good examples ?

Is there no such thing as clutter, or downright overkill?

It would depend upon the theme of the design.
If one looks at the old aerial of Hollywood, there are an enormous number of bunkers, yet, they fit, harmoniously into the overall design.

I'm not advocating bunkers created without thought, but I do think that the trend for fairness, the trend to appeal to the broad spectrum of golfers who play today, coupled with slow play and maintainance costs have caused bunkers to be more scarce then plentiful.

It seems to me that architects such as yourself and others, may have an internal or subconscious governor that is tuned in to the sensitivites of the developer, pace of play, maintainance and need to appeal to a broader spectrum of golfers, and that this may restrict your desire to present more complex, more strategic golf courses, vis a vis more bunkers.

If I told you to go out and build a golf course with only 25 bunkers, would it necessarily be boring to play?

Not necessarily, but, it's more of a site specific question, and answer.

Bunker size or scale also enter into the question

Before you answer that, maybe you'd better re-count the number of bunkers on the original plan for Augusta National that everyone wants to restore.

[T_MacWood]

Are more bunkers better is not the gist of the other thread. The gist of the other thread is Tillinghast altered is design philosophy at a time of personal distress.

The side theme of that thread is that variety is what makes golf architecture interesting: heavily, moderately and sparsely bunkered courses can all be strategic and stimulating.

Testing these various courses based a  bunkering formula is a bad idea. Tilly came up with a bunkering formula, revealed in an article during his PGA tour. 175 yds-&-in was the Duffer's zone...no bunkers in that area. The 2nd Duffers zone is from 300 to about 400 yds on long par-4s...again no bunkers.

It was thought it would help the duffer: "No one really cares a lot what the poor old duffer does anyhow? He is not a serious factor in golf. But he is an important one. He wants his pleasure and we contend that he should have all that possibly may be brought to him as he golfs as best he can."

Frankly I believe he was wrong--a course without any bunkers 175 yrd-&-in would not give the duffer more pleasure, it would be less interesting, less pleasurable and exciting, more monotonous and boring. Thankfully he did follow this formula in designing his many great original golf courses.

Some architects preferred heavily bunkered and IMO those courses should be preserved if possible as designed: Shinnecock Hills, Banff, Hirono, Cypress Point, Oakmont, GCGC, NGLA, Aronomink, Seminole, Pine Valley, Bel-Air etc.

Some architects preferred moderate to sparse bunkering: MacKenzie later in his career (ANGC), Simpson (Morfontaine), Ross (Sagamore& Pinehurst #2), Colt (Sunnigdale-New), Fowler (Berkshire), RTJ (Peachtree),etc. If MacKenzie and Simpson could create world-class courses with 25 or less bunkers it can be done again. The key, it seems to me, is incorporating intersting natural features (the most important being contours) and greens.

It is worth noting, more often than not, the courses considered the very best from a given architect are often more heavily bunkered.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm with Donnie on this one all the way. More auNautrale' bunkers. The modern definition of them stinks.

Gotta go. Canjon de Rustica awaits me!

[Brian Phillips]

Tom Doak,

Is Turnberry not a great example of a course that provides strategic golf without too many bunkers?

As Ian Andrew said it depends on the terrain, no?

Brian

[Tommy Williamsen]

It is interesting how many times a discussion like this comes up.  It is akin to the "how wide should the fairways be discussion.  I think bunkers are preferable to four inch rough.  On a dogleg right with water on the right I like a bunker on the outside of the dogleg.  This tests the courage of the player to either hit it down the middle and challenge the water or lay up short of the bunker.  I have always thought that fairway bunkering is generally underrated as a strategic ploy of the designer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

I'm with Donnie on this one all the way. More auNautrale' bunkers.

You can't have au naturel bunkers if the land doesn't provide them, and few parcels provide them, thus they must be created artificially.

Do you think that the bunkers on #' 4 and 12 at Friar's Head are au naturel ?

The modern definition of them stinks.

What is that definition ?

Tom MacWood,

Would you prefer that a classic course be listed as NLE ?

You have to view the process within the realities of the times, the Great Depression.

[Pat K]

This question leads me to ask, "Is there only one formula for the presentation of a golf hole?" The question of whether there should be more or less bunkering leads me to of an uncomfortable generalization. If we were to say,"Does the third hole at Essex call for a bunker on the left of the driving area? then it would be easy to discuss the pro's and con's.
     One of the charms of the early american courses to me is this lack of formula.
     As much as we may like to think that we aren't set in our ways we all have a comfort level with a certain presentation and are uncomfortable out of the box.
    I find on many new signature courses the tried and true set up of bunkers and green shapes and slope to be boring. And while I find bunkering to be a big part of golf it seems that it has become more than it should be.
     

[Jason Mandel]

Donny,

You say you would love to see more nasty little bunkers, as well as closely cut areas around greens. i admire that as well, but have  always heard that this makes the supers job that much tougher, as a super can you talk about the added maintenance that is required for both those extra little bunkers and the closely mown areas?

jason

[Mike_Cirba]

Donnie Beck has it right.

A course with 200 easy little, finely manicured bunkers built largely for color contrast is too few, while a course with 25 pits that resemble the depths of hell might be too many.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

Having played John's Island West yesterday with my 26.9 USGA Handicap Index'd wife, we marveled at the beauty of the sand hills and the bunkering.  But there was such a sameness to each and every hole that there was little to remember.

We both decided that we would really have to play there many more times to learn the course.  There was difficulty in looking back upon a fun round of golf.  It was like there was too much of a good thing with too much sand.

Willie

[Joe Hancock]

And, what is one bunker? Is it Hells Half Acre, or is it The Road Hole Bunker?

The answer, IMO, to Tom's question is "NO". It also should be noted that more bunkers may not be wrong, either.

Variety, once again, will prevail once this thread is moved down the list.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have iincreased my bunkering over the years, because good bunkers help aesthetics, and that is important in marketing, like it or not.  I am not "selling out" because I happen to like that look of random bunkers in random placements, a la MacKenzie.

I usually end up with 60-75, for cost and maintenance reasons.  I have no formula, but do like to mix in a few bunkerless holes, some featuring small bunkers, some large, some few, some many, etc.  Without my internal checks and balances, I couldn't hold myself back from becoming a Steve Smyers, who often has 100 bunkers or more on his courses, and they look great!

Also important, IMHO, is mixing different difficulties in bunkers.  A few weeks ago, I posted that at one time, I felt it would be neat to have very few bunkers, but make each deep enough to really signal strategy.  I have drifted to more bunkers, but would really like to have at least a few holes, where one very deep bunker on one side of the green sets up the entire play.  Another hole might have a dozen, but none that really scare you.

While I have often doubted the greatness of the Eden hole, as compared to many, I do recall Wind describing it as seeing and avoiding the deeper Strath bunker in front, and possibly pushing yourself too far left into the other bunker as a result.

Dick Nugent used to use the term "Master Bunker."  Whether there is one deep one, or one deep bunker and several not so difficult ones, he tried to create that.  Over time, the golfer would learn which bunkers to avoid, and start to welcome being in one of the supplementary hazards, knowing it was easier.  Of course, it may not be depth that makes it a master bunker, it may be a gathering quality which creates the fear in the golfer.

Having said that, it is very possible to overlitter a hole with too many decorative bunkers.  I won't name them, but a few of my holes do have bunkers that could easily be removed, and in this economy, probably will.  I have had a few clients call me to ask whether they could remove X bunker for maintenance reasons, and when thinking in that mode, its not hard for me to think of several that are superfulous.

It stikes me reading Tom MacWood's post that there may not have been quite the disconnect from the depression until after WWII that we often suppose, because the older architects died, and didn't practice for so long until RTJ came back strong in 1950 or so.  Assuming they could read,  I think Tillie's articles and PGA reports had an influence among architects away from the randomness of, say, Cypress Point, and towards the "make every bunker count for the good player" mentality that dominates until this day.  

There is something to be said for every bunker influencing play of the best players, and letting the duffers enjoy the challenge of hitting the ball in the air and reasonably straight.....

[T_MacWood]

Pat
No I don't prefer they become NLE. Reread my entire post...my point is great architecture comes in variety of bunkering styles.

Which overbunkered courses became NLE during the Depression?

[herrstein]

Did you choose 25 for some reason? How about just 18?
I think a flat piece of ground would make it hard to design an interesting course without bunkers, but rolling land can make for an interesting course with very few bunkers. Pitched fairways make ball flight and placement interesting without bunkers. The same is true in green complexes.
I have seen instances of cluttered bunkering, to my eye. Makes things look overbuilt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Define "overbunkered" in the context of the specific golf course, thanks.

[T_MacWood]

"Overbunkered" from a Tilly Depression era perspective/definition.

[Michael Dugger]

I like to remember the great quote from Tillinghast about dull terrain and how sometimes a hole will need some character slapped into it, more or less.

This is my belief regarding the # of bunkers.  It depends on the terrain and what other "natural" features provide drama, strategy and challenge.  

There have been numerous 'bunkerless course' threads and I think the consensus opinion is that it would have to be a hell of a piece of land to build one with any success.

I do think there is such thing as overkill, though.  Some of the Nick Faldo courses seem over the top with the bunkering.  What is is about the bunkering that is overkill, after all Oakmont has what, like 200 bunkers, but is tremendous.  I wouldn't want to see one of them go.  

[cary lichtenstein]

I think it depends on the site. A Heavily wooded site would require less bunkers.

I admire the bunker work at Cog Hill, Pebble, Sand Hills, Friars, Bethpage.

I prefer the more unkept, "nasty", irregular shapes, depths and sizes.

I think Nicklaus did a wonderful job with the bunkering at the Ritz in Jupiter. Talk about stragety and shot making, together with run off areas and key stragetic trees, it has the right balance for me.

[tonyt]

A flat site that "needs" more bunkers might also be a site where bunkers are less likely to look like natural land features. It's a tough one.

I really liked the threads proposing that with bunkers not being your every day land feature you might see while driving through the country, it may be challenging to build a course with few or no bunkers (in keeping with the local terrain). Given that clients will likely have seizures, one may never have the opportunity to build such a course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I knew you couldn't answer the question in real world terms or numbers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()